Einstein’s Relativity

Name:

Professor:

Course:

Date:

“Einstein’s Relativity”

It has been exceedingly difficult for physicists, Mathematicians and Philosophers have found it had through their existence to reveal the truth about some reality on earth. This paper would fully give a full description of some of these facts and realities. This would be based on some Physicists, Philosopher and Mathematicians points of view. The whole truth as to what the reality is as based on Einstein’s Relativity.

Many theories have been put across by the Physicists, Mathematicians and Philosophers. At the same time, the Physicists have found to trust these theories as pertaining to the natural phenomenon. The first factor was based on the Quantum Theory which dealt with fundamental units of energy and matter (Albert Einstein, 2010, p. 169). This was the first theoretical system that was developed in between the years 1900 and 1927. This theory was developed in an attempt to define what the inner horizons of knowledge. This theory of Quantity gave a full description of time, space and the internal structure of the whole universe. Another part that was defined by the Quantum theories as he tried to reveal what lies in and out of the whole universe was the outer horizons of the knowledge. The theory also depicted that the fundamental units that the outer horizon comprise of is time, space and the structure of the outer horizons of the universe. This theory was never proved right and true, and that is what made the Physicists to lose trust in their faith.

The Newtonian question of “how” has not been answered yet and thus makes it hard. On the other hand, Newton’s laws have answered the question of Aristotle of “why”. These theories tend to provide the equations that have tried to answer the questions defining phenomenon things that existed in the inner and outer horizons. An example of the theories is the theory defining an exceptional accuracy, which are the, laws governing radiation and light propagation. Despite the attempt of the physicists, Mathematicians and philosophers’ attempts to define light in full depth; they have not been able to answer the question of “which atoms will decay and how they are selected for doom?” This is after the scientists have been able to predict in which quantity of uranium given a specific number of atoms will undergo disintegration in a given time length. This has made the physicists lose trust in their faith (Albert Einstein, 2010).

The physicists found the whole thing hard to accept the description of Mathematics about nature and such they decided to abandon experiences of the ordinary world. In order for them, to understand the significance of their retreat it has been necessary for them to step across the small and thin sized line that separates physics from metaphysics. The questions which involves the relationship that exists between observer and reality, the subject and the object have started haunting thinkers that are philosophers sine the season came to dawn. This is when the physicists showed their distrust despite the attempt of the stipulation of the Greek philosopher Democritus that: “Sweet and bitter, cold and warn as well as all the colours, all these things exist but in opinion and not in really, what actually exists in the universe are the atoms, particles are unchangeable and their movement in the unoccupied space. He also added that these object cannot anymore be ascribed as being the objects that are external because the tickling or the pain caused by touching those objects (Christoph Lehner, 2011, p. 645).

In an attempt to penetrate the “real essence of substances”, the English philosopher named John Locke drew a distinction between what he referred to as primary and secondary matter qualities. He considered shape, solidity, motion, and properties that are geometrical and they were termed as real. According to him, secondary qualities include; colours, tastes, sound because they were projections upon the sense organs. Later thinkers found the artificiality of John Locke distinction obvious and that is why the physicists could not have trust in this faith.

The German Mathematician, Leibnitz opposed the prior stipulations of the Philosophers that he could prove that shape, motion, and extension are also apparent qualities in addition to light, heat, and colour which had been mentioned earlier by philosopher John Locke (N. David Mermin, 2009, p. 166). He claims that smooth, round and small are also qualities but things that can only be defined by the human’s convention as white, black and green are not qualities. This is a theory that does not have any concrete prove and, therefore, the physicists do not have trust in this theory.

At last, the scientists and philosophers arrived at a conclusion which is considered startling that since each object is just the sum of the qualities that makes it and since these qualities only exist mind, then the whole objective universe is made up of matter and energy. They add that stars and atoms do nit exist but only exist as a construction of human consciousness, an edifice of symbol shaped convention by man’s senses. This stipulation was supported by Berkeley, who talked on the material archenemy. His phrase pertaining to phenomenon material was that, the whole heaven choir and the furniture found on the earth, in words, all bodies that are a composition of a world frame that is considered mighty. He claims that these bodies do not have any substance without a human mind. The fact accordi8ng to Berkeley is that, so long as these bodies are not perceived by the viewer, and not exist in the observer’s mind, then they must have either not existed at any time. He adds that is not so, then it might be subsist in the mind of a given, and unknown Eternal Spirits. There was no prove, but mere assumptions and, therefore, the physicists did not have any reason to trust and have faith in these theories.

To bring this doubt to a stop, Einstein managed to prove that even the space and time are there as forms of intuition. He utters that this whole idea can not be divorced from the human consciousness than the concepts human beings have of colour, size or shape. According to his stipulation, space does not have any confirmed objective reality with an exception of an arrangement and order of the perceived objects. In addition to that, he puts it that, time does not existence independently apart from the events order by which we measure it (N. David Mermin, 2009, p. 162).

Modern science has experienced a profound bearing from the above subtleties of philosophy. The scientist had been aware of the fast and alarming limitations of man’s senses, as based on the reduction of the philosophers’ objective reality to cover the world of perceptions. Einstein in his attempt to inform the world of what is real, he says that, realization that the knowledge we have about the universe is just a residue of impressions that are clouded by the imperfect senses that makes the quest for reality to seem hopeless. He puts it clear that it is the Mathematical orthodoxy of the universe that makes theorists be able to predict and make discovery of natural laws by the solution of equations. On the other hand, today’s physicists’ paradox, with the mathematical apparatus improvement, the gulf between the observer (man) and the objective world of the description that are scientific become more profound.

The fact that is put to picture is that, the main natural mysteries, that dwell in, the realms that are farthest drawn from the sense-imprisoned man, or science finding it had to describe the reality extremes in an understandable metaphor or manner of physics that is classical, should itself be able to content with noting such relationships of mathematics as it has to be revealed (Christoph Lehner, 2011, p. 634). Therefore, Einstein had to look for a complete experiment that would justify his stipulation. In this attempt, he used a touch and lit on a piece of metal. The result he got was that, when light falls on the surface of a metal plate, the plate would eject electrons in a shower. Then based on this result, Einstein deduced that light is a composition of individual particles called photons.

Einstein then realized that the bounced off beam of photons take different colours. He had to reason further and said that photons of ultraviolet, violet, and other forms that are of high frequency radiation pack more energy than infra and red and thus velocity with which each electron travel is proportionate to the energy content of the striking photon. He expressed the principles holding up these ideas and with the help of historic equations. Einstein’s equation, which provides the, increase of mass with the increase in velocity, is similar to their forms the other equations of relativity only that it has vastly more momentous in its results. Then Einstein concluded that, because the mass of any body in motion increases with increase in motion, then motion is a form of energy. By this stipulation, Einstein declared that energy has mass.

Therefore, Einstein came up with laws of motion. He essentially dwelt in the principle of relative time, mass and distance. He made deductions from the above principles that comprised of what is referred to as the Special Theory of Relativity. After a decade of the publication of Einstein’s work in this field, he expanded on his philosophical and scientific system and came to form the General Theory of Relativity (Albert Einstein, 2010, p. 167). He used this theory to examine the force that is mysterious and gives guides to the whirling of the comets, stars, galaxies and meteors and all the other systems that move like stones, iron, flame and vapour in the inscrutable void that is immense. This is the force that Newton referred to as the, “universal gravity”.

References:

Albert Einstein. Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, New York, Andras Nagy, 2010, p. 167.

Albert Einstein. Relativity: Einstein’s Theory of Spacetime, Time Dilation, Gravity and Cosmology, California, Red and Black Publishers, 2009, p. 286

Jeremy Bransom Griffiths, & Jiří Podolský. Exact space-times in Einstein’s general relativity, Cambridge monographs on mathematical physics, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 356

Alan Morton, Einstein’s Theories of Relativity, Milestones in Modern Science Series, New York, Evans Brothers, 2008, p. 472.

N. David Mermin. It’s About Time: Understanding Einstein’s Relativity, Washington DC, Princeton University Press, 2009, p. 162.

Christoph Lehner. Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Volume 12 of Einstein Studies, New York, Springer, 2011, p. 634